Message #8686

[Gnrfan]

how could you occupy them all on the same brand without things getting stale?

Isn't the exact opposite true? A split makes things stale. If it was one brand, the possibilities become endless.

You see i think the split helps staleness. Coz you get loads of new faces and new prospects. Some are good and some are bad.

People say the cream rises to the top..... But yet everyone moans about Cena! I gather your point about top stars not needing world titles but then you kill the prestige of your belt your champion needs to be believable otherwise belts become useless.

I'd love to see the brand split end but from WWE's standpoint it makes more sense. They can get alot more talent on tv (and away from other companies) which is more likely to make them more stars. Lets face it without the brand split you wouldn't have Cena, Batista, Angle, Eddie who all thrived on the less crowded waters of brand split.

When i say stale i mean the rotation of the names would be Stale. Every PPV would have HHH, Taker, Edge, Jericho, Batista, Cena etc in the big matches and you could pretty much put the 5 biggest faces and the 5 biggest heels in a hat and pick them out.

One of the best thing about the split is that you get feuds like Ziggler/Rey or Kingston/Orton and it feels fresh coz Orton has been facing the "Big Names" for so long. The split certainly gives new talent a chance and if they ended it they would have to find a way to keep that going.

The other thing about ending the split guys like CM Punk/Miz would never get the amount of time on the mic because he would never have got to that level.

I'd love to see Raw at 3 hours with no brand split.... but still push guys like Ziggler, Miz, Morrison, McIntrye, Bourne... coz if they get lost in the shuffle then it would be the shame.

From a TV quality point of view ending the split makes sense but from running a international company it doesn't really unless their viewers start to leave.